Top products from r/TrueFilm

We found 70 product mentions on r/TrueFilm. We ranked the 237 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/TrueFilm:

u/Loneytunes · 4 pointsr/TrueFilm

As that asshole who posted that thing, I...

A. Narcissistically think it's awesome that you're asking this question. Mostly because I asked this question, and I honestly enjoy film more because of it. I disagree completely with the idea that when one understands art more it's thus more difficult to enjoy it.

B. Literary theory is helpful with many films, especially the more standard ones. It becomes less helpful when we get into more avant garde cinema, but either way, I think it's a great jumping off point but one should preferably support the analysis that has been framed in Literary terms via Cinematic ones, because that's where the evidence to support your theory actually lies.

C. Here are my bullet points of advice, in the interest of economizing information:

  • Read some books on film theory. A really good place to start is with the work of Bordwell & Thompson, which is pretty standard practice for film students. That will give you a rudimentary and foundational vocabulary through which you can begin understanding film better, and often that's the problem is not knowing what to look for.

  • If you can, try to talk about film as much as you can with people who know more than you. I meet for drinks regularly with a former professor and screenwriter who has done more in the industry than most and is one of the smartest people I know. I can keep up with him, but he's clearly way ahead of me as he should be. I've learned and figured out specific films almost as much just talking out ideas with similarly informed people, as just sitting there watching them or reading about them.

  • Read up on a wide variety of topics, specifically philosophy, art theory and psychology as well as perhaps some science, anthropology and history. Find fields with which you are really fascinated by. Those who are interested in physics, determinism or analytic philosophy will look at and interpret film in a different way than others, I'd imagine they may be heavily structuralist and influenced by the Soviet Montage school in their own work, for instance. Someone else more interested in history and science may approach film from a sociological perspective as well as subscribe to some interesting ideas such as Jean Epstein's theory that film breaks the space time continuum. Me, myself, I'm really fascinated with psychoanalysis and abstractly cosmic concepts, things that cut to the core of human experience, and couldn't care less about free will or analytics because I don't see how they change anything phenomenologically. So it would make sense that I'm drawn to surrealism, and analyze film is a post-structural, Lacanian way, as well as drawing much of my support for interpretations from the semiotic aesthetics when I can.

  • Write stuff. Often I don't figure out a movie until I start writing, and then it just sort of comes out fully formed much of the time. If you have a blog send me a link too, I'd like to see it. Anyway.

  • Once you've determined your points of interest it will be easier to decide who to read/watch next but I find these ones were the most enlightening for me. So if you like what I said about my own viewpoint above, they will help, and I'll include some things that are standard that I don't prefer but am glad I read as well.

    Christian Metz will teach you about how film communicates information through non-verbal aesthetics. If you want to understand how to analyze film via a non-literary perspective, this is where to start.

    Hugo Munsterberg is the father of most film theory. Oddly, he doesn't seem to like movies very much, but the book has some very relevant information on the interaction between film and spectator, that is essential (assuming a relatively modern approach at least. I suppose a formalist wouldn't care too much about the meaning of the film itself and thus the relationship wouldn't matter).

    Slavoj Zizek has a lot of books on cinema, but also his documentary "The Perverts Guide to Cinema" is one of the most entertaining, as well as informative looks at film I've seen. It doesn't really address aesthetic elements as well as take a Lacanian look at why certain scenes provoke the reactions they do or what they mean, but I think that if one combines this psychological perspective with the understanding of how juxtaposition of elements conditions the viewer as evidenced by a lot of Soviet Film Theory, one can figure out the mechanism of how these meanings are being communicated. Also here's an interesting more structural take on Zizek that I've read.

    I don't find it necessarily essential to my own views, but Sergei Eisenstein has a lot of really interesting work, and his books use a lot of synonymous examples in other art to illustrate how film works differently from theater and other narrative form. It also breaks down the Soviet Montage theory better than almost any other work.

    Another essential book for many that I'm not a huge fan of yet I'd still say is pretty important to read is What Is Cinema by Andre Bazin
    Dude loves movies and is pretty enlightening for many people I just disagree with a lot of his ideas of how film should best be made.

    Andrew Sarris is a relatively important guy for understanding American film criticism. He and Pauline Kael warred for a while, and I think Pauline Kael is a blowhard ignoramous who never actually said anything relevant or informed about movies. People love her though, probably because she was an entertaining writer, and she was influential. But anyway, Sarris was the one who brought auteur theory, the dominant theory of understanding filmmaking today, to America from France.

    An interesting look at directorial style and authorship is Martin Scorese's "A Personal Journey Through American Movies". It's not comprehensive or detailed, but it will not only show you some great classical era films to look up, but he has a unique idea of the director as filling one of four roles, storyteller, illusionist, smuggler and iconoclast. As a side note, I think Scorsese sees himself as a Smuggler, and attempts to be much more so in the wake of his reaching iconic status. For a much more challenging work of film criticism from a director that is still alive, check out Histoire(s) du Cinema by Jean-Luc Godard.

    Finally I'd say Tom Gunning, who I actually met once and was fascinating to listen to, is pretty important. He's mostly focused on early film, and the development of how a film communicates narrative. He will illustrate some interesting things on spacial reasoning and editing and how logical information is communicated. For instance now in film you know which character is on the left by giving him some negative talk space in close up on the right, and when a character leaves frame on the right they enter the next from on the left if one wishes to maintain continuity of space, time and setting. Also his cinema of attractions theory is pretty interesting and explains exactly why people go watch Michael Bay movies, as well as elucidating the mentality of film-goers in the pre-Griffith era.

    Also, look around the web. Some places like,'s essays and blogs sections, or occasionally have some really interesting stuff. Also there are random blogs around that do really enlightening work (like mine! shameless self promotion aside, if you want it I'll send it to you but I'm not gonna be that douche) that I sometimes stumble across.

    Let me know if you have any questions or need clarification, and good luck!
u/mafoo · 14 pointsr/TrueFilm

I'm a big horror movie fan, particularly of 80s slashers. The appeal and appreciation for me comes from a number of factors. Some of these are purely personal and subjective and some are more about film appreciation in general:

  1. I'm a child of the 80s, so 80s-nostalgia just has a personal appeal to me. I enjoy seeing the clothes, the hair, the slang, the food, the values, all that. From a superficial ironic enjoyment to a wistful 'I miss those days' enjoyment, these films just make me happy.

  2. I love horror movies, particularly of the 70s and 80s (French and Asian horror from the 2000s is also really great). I love being scared, I love the soundtracks (horror soundtracks are often the most daring and interesting of any genre), I love trying to figure out the mystery and experiencing the twists when they occur. When you watch enough horror films, you start to appreciate the small differences, which brings me to more hard reasons for loving horror.

  3. Studying the genre: Horror as a genre - and slasher movies as a sub-genre - have a lot of tendencies and traditions that are very interesting to identify and analyze. Just as people study the conventions of film noir, westerns, French New Wave, etc., 80s slasher movies come with a well-defined and easily identifiable set of criterion: There tends to be group of young peoples (usually of mixed sex) and one (usually) male killer who systematically kills them off one by one, typically with a knife or other sharp object. The order in which he kills them, how they die, what they are doing when they die, what sex they are, these are all ripe for analyzation. Also, how each movie tweaks the formula to make it unique is quite interesting. Halloween, Friday the 13th, Slumber Party Massacre, these all have different ways of going through this formula that vary in slight ways. Then there are examples like Nightmare on Elm St. or Sleepaway Camp that take the formula in pretty crazy directions.

  4. Cult/Bad movie appreciation: To be honest, part of the reason I love the more cornier 80s slashers is similar to why I enjoy movies like Troll 2 or The Room. Partly, it's fun watching low budget, lower quality movies, seeing the errors and bad filmmaking decisions in action is entertaining. But there's also the surprise of finding something really cool or unique in a film you thought was just a turd.

    As for recommendations, if you haven't you should try watching Nightmare on Elm St. (the first one). It's way less campy than the later ones, Freddy is more of a menace than the wise-cracking cartoon character he becomes in later films. The music in particular is really great. I'd also suggest Black Christmas for a proto-slasher; Sleepaway Camp for some interesting exploration of gender; and Pieces for the so-bad-it's-good enjoyment. If you'd like to check out a great 80s horror film - less of a slasher, more supernatural horror - check out the original Hellraiser. It's really good.

    For more reading, I'd highly recommend Carol J. Clover's Men, Women, and Chainsaws which analyzes gender in slasher movies. Great read.

    EDIT: How could I forget the practical special FX!?! I love this special on the amazing effects in Child's Play, another unique take on the 80s slasher.

    And of course The Thing....
u/afewthoughtsonfilm · 2 pointsr/TrueFilm

I curious as to whether there is an intended theme for each week beyond simply going over various auteurs. I only ask because, if that is the case, what is the one for Haneke's week? Personally, I am favorable to his work overall (particularly Caché, so good choice on that one); however, he does feel like the odd man out on this list, if for no other reason than the fact that his films are less essential overall compared to the other filmmakers listed. Is his role intended as the "modern auteur" or were you just interested in his films? If the latter is the case, then I certainly recommend doing him, as his work is certainly interesting to consider (and I am a big fan of austerity done right); if the former is the case, there may be others who are more interesting choices, at least from my perspective.

As for books, the most important film book I ever read was Film as Art by Rudolph Arnheim. He lays down the foundation of what motion picture art is and has essentially helped to define the terms on which I understand and appreciate the medium. For me, that is essential reading. Beyond that, I personally always enjoy reading essays by film theorists, who help to shape the intellectual sphere of film. Two books I recommend (which are more compilations of essays/presentations of different theories) are Oxford Guide to Film Studies and Critical Visions in Film Theory, which both offer many great ways to consider the medium. I also recommend seeking out books of interviews of the filmmakers (much like you're doing with Hitchcock/Truffaut), as that always enables for more specific looks at what a filmmaker is doing with their piece.

Overall, I commend you for doing this - it's a really great way to become more acquainted with the medium, and you're choosing some really great films/filmmakers to look at.

u/TheTimeRoadRunner · 2 pointsr/TrueFilm

I highly recommend the writings of Russian filmmakers if this topic interests you. Dziga Vertov has written some, especially on theories of the Cine Eye. But I think the big go to guy is [Sergei Eisenstein] (, whose writings on film frequently deal with the communist/revolutionary potential of cinema. He is very interested in how Cinema can create a "class consciousness," which I think have very interesting implications. These can be found in [this lovely book here] ( (TL/DR: Montage! Montage! Montage!)

It is a great topic because I absolutely believe that film has great unifying potential. Has anyone ever been in a movie theater with a really great audience? (I find Thrillers and Horror Films to be good places to start if you're looking for a connected audience experience.) When an audience and the film are all synced up, it is an incredible feeling. Documentaries are also really good for this if you want to feel a politically charged/activist experience in the theater. (This is what Vertov will say in the Cine-Eye article, but without calling it "documentary.")

The thing to keep in mind with these authors is that they were also dealing with Silence, which is something I don't think we readily factor in when we have discussion about film's unifying potential. We'd like to think that a "good revolutionary film" is all cannons and brass instruments. These authors challenge us to think about what the image and composition of the film can do to create a "group consciousness" in the theater.

Really rich subject here!

u/lordhadri · 2 pointsr/TrueFilm

Ahh, yes, The Birth of a Nation. Despite it's unavoidable stature, it wasn't necessarily the best movie from that year, or the best movie made up until that point, y'know? It's just where Hollywood got its start from. Put simply, if you try to do this by watching the 'official' classics, you're going to have a bad time.

I have found this book really useful so try to find it at a library or just buy it. (Despite the name, a good number of directors who only worked partially in America are represented in it.)

I'd also suggest not working forward chronologically because that'll take forever and, as I've learned from a similar project with a few of the mods here, you never know what'll be good and what'll still be crap a century later. Let somebody else do the recommending for you. Figure out which directors and genres interest you and then mix them all up, even I'd go a little crazy trying to only watch silents.

Also note that silent films in many cases are available on YouTube in excellent quality, everything from obscure stuff to what are considered the masterpieces of the period. This is better than trying to find and watch them on DVD in my experience.

I think there's a bit of bias towards milestone in technique movies from that long ago and the really great movies don't get talked about enough. von Sternberg's late period silents are still entertaining as fuck today. We can say the same of the more well-known Murnau, Lang, Chaplin, and Keaton. (In the last case, new restorations of his movies look like they could have be filmed yesterday.) All of these guys made great movies, and none of them made 'art' movies, whatever that means.

My guess is that once you're actually enjoying watching old movies the occasional milestone movie that doesn't feel so great won't feel like a waste of time.

u/enchilladam · 1 pointr/TrueFilm

My favorites:

The Visual Story

In the Blink of an Eye

How to Read a Film (personally bored by it but a lot of film classes I took in uni versity used it)

The Filmmaker's Eye (huge fan of this book)

The rest of this post is just general advice on how to gain a deeper knowledge of film.

If you want to learn the grammar of film, read about film history (it will help introduce you to editing/camera movement/directing techniques and the filmmakers/films that influenced your favorite directors).

Read criticism from Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, David Bordwell (his blog is a fantastic resource), Jonathan Rosenbaum, and older critics such as Bazin/Eisenstein. There are more out there, but this is a good start.

Read reviews after you watch a film instead of beforehand--those reviews will hopefully give you a deeper view of the film. That being said, you really have to look around to figure out who you like, stylistically speaking. There are a lot of critics that have no idea what they're talking about from a technical standpoint. If you're bored with short reviews without substance you might like FILMCRITHULK.

Watch YouTube tutorials and video essays on filmmaking. Video essays are particularly helpful at illustrating and pointing out things that you might not have noticed otherwise. It's also a hell of a lot more entertaining than reading criticism that was written in 1962 in another language.

From a practical standpoint, pick up a camera and shoot something. Edit it. Read books on composition--I've found that photography composition books are pretty helpful. Read scripts from films you love and films you haven't seen to get an idea of how a film exists before the first day of shooting takes place.

Keep watching films, and watch them actively. Don't text during films, and try to watch them in one sitting. The goal is to immerse yourself in the image and analyze the shots/cuts/etc. as they happen. Watch films with commentaries, watch them with the sound off, and branch out into different genres and time periods so that you can attain a more concise view of film.

Above all else, watch as many films as you can. You'll find that the watchlist keeps growing, no matter how many films you see.

u/Seandouglasmcardle · 8 pointsr/TrueFilm

Theres a 15 part documentary on Hulu called The Story of Film: An Odyssey. It's excellent, and it will give you a very broad understanding of the history of film.

As for lists, one good way to start is to watch all of the movies on the [AFI 100] ( That will give you a very broad picture of the history of American movies. Just set aside one day a week and watch one movie on the list every week.

Don't just watch them. Try to find out WHY each movie is revered as it is. After watching it, then read as much as you can about it. Read Roger Ebert's review, read it's entry on, and start trying to contextualize each movie in its place in cinema history.

That will take you two years, but you'll have a much deeper appreciation than you do now.

After that, I suggest watching the BFI Sight and Sound Top 50. That will give you a more broad understanding of foreign film as well.

As for books I assign these to my class:

Film Art: An Introduction
This is the textbook that the department assigns. Its pretty broad and a decent overview.

Hitchcock In the 1960's Francois Truffaut interviewed Alfred Hitchcock and covered his entire filmography in detail. Fantastic, indispensable read.

What Is Cinema?
Andre Bazin was a french film critic, and the originator of Auteur theory. This is one of the original film theory books.

The American Cinema
Andrew Sarris is the American analog of Bazin. This is also a fundamental Film Theory book.

That should give you a solid start.

u/hobscure · 4 pointsr/TrueFilm

First things first. It's good to be critical of your own tastes and wanting to be able to talk about it is great.

The thing is; to talk about movies you talk about intentions (intentions of the director, but also the cameraman, the lighting, the actor, etc). Although there is a common goal, these disciplines approach it in very different manners. If everything works; it's all conveying the right intentions at the right time. To get why some movies work and some don't you need to learn the "languages" of at least a couple of the disciplines. You should notice the way the camera frames the person and why at that moment in the narrative they chose to do that in this specific manner. You should notice the way the scene is lighted; is it dark, is it red, etc. All these things get you on the track of what the overall intention is. Things like this can be picked up from books like ["In the blink of an eye"] ( Which is a great book about editing.

Now if you talk about the cultural remark a movie makes. What it says about something in the real-world; In real life. Your entering the domain of sociology, psychology, anthropology and/or philosophy. This again is a whole other beast. It's taking all the intentions of the movie and trying to see what it "means". The Why. This is also very personal. If you like dystopian settings. That can be connected with nihilism. So you read up about nihilism in Friedrich Nietzsche (although not technically a nihilist) or Albert Camus. I can go on and on.

The point I think I want to make is that it's a total package. It's not one book that can teach you how to think about movies. There is no one book that can tell you how to take them in and to express your feelings about them. I must add that I did not study film criticism so I don't know the material they teach there and I'm sure there are books that give you a glimpse or an overall view how to approach this topic. But in the end there is no book that can show you your own way of conveying your feelings. Discussing the marks a movie left on you with others.

The only way to do that is like learning a language. You have to read it but also speak it and "live in the country" to really master it. So find a friend/forum/teacher/parent/dog/cat you can talk with about movies you both saw.

u/existential_taco · 2 pointsr/TrueFilm

I hope this is helpful. Here is the syllabus of an introductory film class I took in college, also here is our final exam.

You have a lot of movies picked out; which if you want to a build a repertoire of films for college is fine. But analyzing a film takes a ton of time. I remember an assignment where we had to describe in detail the mise-en-scene of five shots and it took me an hour. Throughout the semester we only watched six films. But almost every class we watched a few scenes from different movies and then discuss those in the context of that days topic. For example if we were discussing transition techniques we would watch examples of cuts, dissolves, wipes, fade in/out ect. If there are topics you are interested in I am sure you can find scenes that highlight those, or maybe people here can make recommendations.

Also having a good understanding of the fundamentals of film making is essential for later analysis. This is the textbook we used. It's a little expensive but since you are not taking a class I would highly recommend at least getting some sort of textbook.

If you want me to explain anything in the syllabus just ask.

Best of luck.

u/dccorona · 7 pointsr/TrueFilm

Here's a few books that I found very helpful in my film education:
[Film Theory and Criticism] ( - fairly self-explanatory in terms of what it is. A great collection of academic film criticism and film theory writings.

Film Theory - An Introduction - a great book that looks at some of the most widely regarded writings on film theory and breaks them down into more easy to understand explanations (film theorists often like to demonstrate the size of their vocabulary a bit too much, to the point where it can be distracting to some). Best consumed alongside the writings and theories being referenced, many of which can be found in the first book I linked.

Both of the above are going to be the most useful to you if you can try and read them shortly before or after (or both) viewing some or all of the films they're discussing.

u/dampus2000 · 2 pointsr/TrueFilm

To get insight into the genius of Hitchcock the best way is to read the superb Hitchcock/Truffaut in which Trauffaut through a long intervew with Hitchcock brings great insight into Hitchcock and movie making in general.

I myself feel as David O. Selznick left maybe to much of a imprint on this movie for into to compare to the greatest Hitchcock movies(for me the best is "The Wrong Man") but it's still a great movie so read the book and see it again and maybe by seeing it in the perspective of it being made in 1940, a year before Citizen Kane, and with the help of Truffaut you will se why it's so highly rated.

If you don't want to read the full book. Here are the audio outtakes of the interview regarding Rebecca and other things Les Debuts Americains Rebecca.

u/poliphilo · 8 pointsr/TrueFilm

I think you can track down older books, like this one, which cover it, but since you listed out all those questions, I'll throw out some answers.

As context, I was trained in analog, but then did just a very small amount of professional assistant work that way before switching over fully to digital. No direct experience on major Hollywood films, but I knew people who worked on a few.

> Were editors editing the master copy of a film or would a bunch of temporary copies made and then those were edited?

Editing was done with a 'work print', a low quality print of the negative. You could get 2-3 of these made, but there usually wasn't need for a bunch.

> Once the edit is locked, is it the copy from the editor's bay that's copied to distribution or is the edit reapplied to a cleaner copy? Is the master stock ever cut (like, with a blade)?

The negative is cut to match the locked work print. Yes, it's cut with a blade. In some cases, it was cut in a way that would irreversibly destroy the adjacent unused frames.

> If I'm seeing a film in a movie theatre, how many generations removed is that film from inside of the canister when shooting?

Typically, the original negative is used to create a few 'inter-positive' prints, then those are used to make several 'inter-negative' prints, and then the theatrical positive was produced from those. So 3 generations! But the generational loss was not as bad as you might think.

> How are different takes organized within the editing bay?

Typically, the first step is to pick 'selects': just the 1-3 takes you think are good. You could have more, but usually it's a small percentage of the takes that were done. The bad takes get put away in can on a shelf.

The selects for a scene then get strung up on a film editing bin, basically just a metal bar with clips, over basically a big box/can lined with fabric, to prevent the film from picking dust from the floor.

> If I want to try a different take to see if it works better, what's the process like to accomplish this?

Cut out the bad take, tape in the good one. These little splicing tools make it pretty fast.

> In digital, I'm often obsessing over the exact frame to cut on and I go back and forth over several options. What was that process like with film? If I decide a cut and later on decide that scene needs 2 more frames, is that going to be a massive pain in the ass?

In those days, editors would develop the ability to kind of cut in their head. You figure out which frame is going to be the last one, and then you cut. After a while, you often get it right on the first try. It's very easy to trim again, if you need to. And if you immediately change your mind and want to add in a couple more frames, just keep them close by and tape them back in, no problem.

On the other hand, let's say you cut a scene weeks ago, and now you suddenly decide you want it to play out slower. Tracking down the 'tails' of shots in this case can be a pain; call for the assistant.

> With digital, nothing is ever lost. If I want to go back to a previous edit of a film, it's stored on my hard drive. But film is edited destructively so what systems were in place for recording edits? If a director tells me that he changed his mind and he prefers the way I edited the scene last week, am I SOL?

This is one of the biggest advantage of digital. You could make a dupe, but this wasn't common. The main technique is to just have a notebook and write down what you changed.

> With digital, I can screen a cut of a movie to an audience, take feedback and suggestions and then go back and recut in a matter of hours or days and iteratively work on it. Was this possible/easy when editing film?

Sure, quite easy. The actual editing process itself wasn't so much slower, not counting effects and such.

But... with analog, it was a little less tempting to make last-minute changes, because you wouldn't want to break down the film and risk actually having the cut be in literal pieces when it's supposed to play. I say only a little, because I can attest to filmmakers who were absolutely making edits, at major film festivals, to later reels while earlier reels were being projected.

> How does sound work? Is sound another physical strip that I have to keep in sync with the video strip? How does all of that get managed?

Yes, when editing you have a work-print and separate magnetic tape. Your selected take is the two together.

Going back to that picture of the flatbed, you can see multiple 'plates' on each side of the desk; in this case there are 2 for picture and 2 for sound. The editing system generally plays them both together, so it keeps it all in sync for you, by default.

Getting out of sync did happen sometimes, even with experience. So before editing, you usually write a bunch of film edge numbers onto the magnetic tape with a sharpie or whatever. If they get separated or out of sync, it's usually pretty easy to correct.

> Does anyone still edit the manual way today?

Some hipsters. A few artists.

> Do we know when the last mainstream movie that was edited completely on film was?

I think it's yet to be made. Last sorta' mainstream movie I heard about is 2014's Jimmy's Hall. Fun article.

> How quick was the transition from film to digital?

This timeline seems about right. About 5 years from "very rare to edit digitally" (1993) to "most everone's doing it, even curmudgeons like Woody Allen" (1998) followed by another 10 years where you'd still regularly see an indie or foreign film. Quite rare after 2008.

> What did the introduction of digital editing make much easier and how has that changed the process for editing movies? What kinds of movies do we see today that we rarely saw when editing was still analog? What kinds of editing do we see more of/less of?

Films with a lot of dense layering, dissolves, overlays and tons of quick cuts were truly difficult. Vertov, Eisenstein, and Kinugasa did it in the silent era, but it didn't come back into vogue until the 90s with digital, around the time of Natural Born Killers, then a bunch of Tony Scott & Bruckheimer films. And in more recent years you have 'fast-cutters' like Guy Maddin, whose recent films would be very difficult in analog.

Other ideas:

  • Effects-driven films are better on digital too, because you can easily cut in (or even manipulate) kinematics or whatever as part of the editing process.
  • Integrating sound design into the overall editing process used to be tough; sound was usually an afterthought. It still often is, but digital makes it way easier to do really creative sound design and integrate that into the whole process.In my view, not too many filmmakers really do this. Tykwer, Zemeckis, a few others.
  • Finally, intra-shot editing—picking a different take for the left side of the shot than the right side—is getting big. But this may be more of a newer development, not part of the '90s revolution you're interested in.

    But to be clear, the conventional wisdom is that if you're making a standard 'continuity' dramatic film, the editing tech doesn't change things much. Digital's cheaper, more convenient, maybe a little faster. But a lot of films would probably end up very similar in either process.
u/diarmada · 44 pointsr/TrueFilm


The argument I make for this being my top film choice is a rather economical one...I watch this film once every year and I carry it (the spirit, feeling) with me for months after each view. Each time I watch it, I appreciate something new or re-appreciate it all over again.

The film was shot 3 different times, with differing crews (using over 5,000 meter of film), with almost identical results...this points to a vision that was unrelenting. The fact that the core of the movie is ambiguous, creates a mystery that is compelling and grows upon repeat viewing.

One of the other reasons I really like Stalker, is from the wealth of apocrypha and literature dealing with the movie and production. The documentary "Rerberg i Tarkovsky. Obratnaya storona Stalkera", the definitive 'Tarkovsky on Tarkovsky' "Sculpting in Time", the beautiful "The Films of Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue", the scholarly tome "Andrei Tarkovskys Poetics of Cinema", and the upcoming work "Zona: A Book About a Film About a Journey to a Room" by Geoff Dyer.

u/IFeelOstrichSized · 10 pointsr/TrueFilm

Okay, The Power of Film is a very well known book on film in general, its history and importance.

Film Art: An Introduction is another very popular book on film in general, focusing on techniques, criticism, and a little bit of history.

The Oxford Guide to Film Studies seems to be a good introduction to film analysis and study.

Movies and Methods seems to be a frequently recommended book on film criticism. Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings seems to be more complex(with an apparently deceptive title), but very popular as well.

The Oxford History of World Cinema is a really great basic book on film history.

I have not read all these books, but I have pdf copies of several and am planning on buying some of these so, please, someone comment if you think one of my recommendations was bad or if you have a better suggestion with a similar subject.

*I added titles.

u/soapdealer · 2 pointsr/TrueFilm

I always feel you get better information reading works by practitioners than from academics or journalists. My two favorite film books:

In the blink of an eye by multiple Oscar-winning film editor Walter Murch is probably the best book for understanding film editing and the theory behind why it works.

Making Movies by Sidney Lumet (who presumably needs no introduction) is the best all-around book written on filmmaking.

u/LocalAmazonBot · 1 pointr/TrueFilm

Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:

Amazon Smile Link: two-disc special edition

|Country|Link|Charity Links|

To help add charity links, please have a look at this thread.

This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting). The thread for feature requests can be found here.

u/TheOvy · 13 pointsr/TrueFilm

If you just want to go over film theory, I think the standard text for an Intro to Film course is Braudy & Cohen's Film Theory & Criticism.

If you want a compelling history of film, I recommend the 11-episode The Story of Film, directed and narrated by Mark Cousins. It's a great starting point for getting into top tier cinema, and Cousins' passion for film becomes contagious as he narrates key moments in its history, and how these movies connect and respond to each other. It should give you many samples of some important touchstones, and you can pull out a lot of movie recommendations from it. It's currently streaming on Hulu, and is available for rent or purchase on most the usual services (though oddly enough, not on itunes).

u/TheVorpalBlade · 3 pointsr/TrueFilm

Andre Bazin has a fantastic argument in his book What is Cinema where he talks about the fathers of cinema and their goals. When cameras were first invented the goal was to best replicate the human experience from a subjective point of view. Like 'being there'.

This advancement has never stopped in cinema, and it's innovations have been driven by the entertainment market.


We can focus our eyes on foreground and background images.

Our iris open and close for light.

We hear sound.

Adrenaline kicks up the amount of image information when we are in an intense state.
Higher Shutter Speed (action films primarily).

We see in color.
Color film.

We have peripheral vision.

Our heads are on 'gyroscopes'.
Dolly's and Steadicams.

We hear sound with two ears and understand that sound in physical space.
Surround sound.

And so on...

3D is just the next logical step.
It just sucks right now and no one knows how to use it.
Just like all the innovations above, it will get better once we figure out how the hell to tell better stories with the technology.

My 2 cents anyway.

u/saintandre · 5 pointsr/TrueFilm

The BFI Film Classics are a series of monographs about particular films. Here's the one for Citizen Kane, written by Laura Mulvey (whose essay Visual Pleasure in Narrative Cinema is one of my favorite film essays).

If you really liked Stalker, it might be worth it for you to read Tarkovsky's book Sculpting in Time, where he talks specifically about how he makes films, what he thinks films do and why he made the choices that he made for all of his films.

u/nightgames · 10 pointsr/TrueFilm

Here's a great series about all the Wes Anderson movies up to Moonrise Kingdom based on the book by Matt Zoller Seitz. I really love these videos and go back to re-watch them all the time.

The Wes Anderson Collection:

Chapter 1: Bottle Rocket

Chapter 2: Rushmore

Chapter 3: The Royal Tenenbaums

Chapter 4: The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou

Chapter 5: The Darjeeling Limited

Chapter 6: Fantastic Mr. Fox

Chapter 7: Moonrise Kingdom

u/trendyrendy · 6 pointsr/TrueFilm

Honestly, the easiest way is just to watch a lot of movies. You most likely know all of these basic patterns already.

If you're interested in story structure, try checking out Screenplay by Syd Field, Story by Robert McKee, Hero's Journey by Joseph Campbell, and Save the Cat by Blake Snyder (though I'm not crazy about this one)

u/bomberboy7 · 60 pointsr/TrueFilm

In the Blink of an Eye by Walter Murch. Had to read it for Editing II and have read it 3 more times since. Great book about editing and philosophy. Very light read as well.

u/worff · 1 pointr/TrueFilm

By 'essay' do you mean just another essay for a class, or are we talking big research paper? Because if so, be thorough:

  • Early British films, you wanna see The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes.

  • Early American films, you want Rebecca and Shadow of a Doubt.

  • Mid period American films, you want Notorious and Strangers on a Train.

  • Early color films, you want Rear Window, Vertigo, and North by Northwest.

  • 1960's, you want Psycho and The Birds.

  • Late British period, you want Frenzy and Family Plot.

    Also, get this book of his correspondence with Francois Truffaut. The Donald Spoto book is also useful.
u/monday_thru_thursday · 4 pointsr/TrueFilm

Sidney Lumet's book, Making Movies, covers most of the spectrum and is simply a great read.

As for other books, they are generally more technical. For screenwriting, there's McKee's Story; for editing, there's Reisz and Millar's Technique of Film Editing; for cinematography, there's Blain Brown's Cinematography Theory and Practice. And Lumet's book would complete this tetralogy, being a book essentially about directing.

u/eggonrye · 2 pointsr/TrueFilm

This is a great reinforcement of some basic principals of eye-trace that have consciously been used in film since the early 20th century.

Bruce Block covers all the principals that attract the viewer's gaze in this text. The whole book is a good read for aspiring filmmakers; its basically a summation of principals that date back to renaissance painting combined with Eisenstein's montage theories.

Edit: I'm in no way affiliated with Mr. Block. Just a fan of his work.

u/jrwhite8 · 1 pointr/TrueFilm

The Visual Story by Bruce Block is pretty good for the basics of film language. It's commonly used in film schools.

u/bankyandbrodie · 1 pointr/TrueFilm

Is this by chance the set you have?

I have been considering buying it and was hoping you might vouch for the quality.

u/takethecannoli4 · 38 pointsr/TrueFilm

Read “Narration in the Fiction Film”, by David Bordwell, and maybe “The Way Hollywood Tells It” if you’re in the mood. That’s it.

The Automoderator does not allow me to be concise, so I'll add some stuff.

The first book uses cognitive psychology principles to explain how movies work and how we interact with them. It's one of the best books I've ever read about film — and I'm a film major. David Bordwell is so much better than everyone else it's ridiculous. IT MAKES SENSE, it is accessible and will make you understand film in no time.

The second, by the same author, is a historical view of how American cinema evolved, from the very start to Matrix (I think). It's awesome, straightforward and precise.

Film Art: An Introduction is, in my opinion, a bit too basic for you, but you may use it if you feel overwhelmed.

u/CCBaxter79 · 14 pointsr/TrueFilm

This one is an excellent anthology:

These are some of my favorites:

André Bazin, What is Cinema?

Andrej Tarkovsky, Sculpting in Time

Gilberto Perez, The Material Ghost

Gilles Deleuze, The Movement Image & The Time Image (sophisticated, but very insightful)

u/bulcmlifeurt · 1 pointr/TrueFilm

The Ebert commentary is on the two-disc special edition (where I heard it), and apparently also on a 70th anniversary edition.

u/KevinJP64 · 31 pointsr/TrueFilm

I highly recommend Film Theory & Criticism edited by Braudy & Cohen. It compiles a lot of fundamental texts on film theory and is broken up in a way that makes it easier for someone just jumping in.

u/TheCheshireCody · 3 pointsr/TrueFilm

Since benhamine has already given you the Blu-Ray link, I thought I'd give the DVD version as well.

u/thponders · 8 pointsr/TrueFilm

Also, since it hasn't been mentioned, I've been encouraged to read the interviews between Alfred Hitchcock and Francois Truffaut. I haven't had a chance to read them entirely yet, but the bits I have read have been really insightful.

u/pensivewombat · 19 pointsr/TrueFilm

Wait, is "I spit on your grave" critically maligned? I feel like it's always being cited as groundbreaking classic.

This probably says more about the film critics I read than about your analysis though :-) Thanks for the post.

I highly recommend Carol Clover's book Men Women and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film [(amazon link)

It's out of print so the only options are used, but any unversity library that has a film department should have a copy or be able to get one for you.

u/broncobluster · 16 pointsr/TrueFilm

Making Movies by Sydney Lumet might work for you. He spends a chapter on each of th films he directed and talks a lot about his role as the director in each phase of the movie making process.

u/ZooSized · 7 pointsr/TrueFilm

Everything you ever wanted to know about Hitchcock, there is also a documentary based on these interviews on HBO.

As /u/MrFoxLovesBoobafina has mentioned he was influenced by silent film directors, also read a lot of books which gave him the basis for most of his script ideas.

u/thelostdolphin · 1 pointr/TrueFilm

> when it comes to discussions about French New Wave, Melville rarely is mentioned

Hmm, okay...

I wasn't being hyperbolic about Hitchcock. He was an enormous influence on the New Wave directors and Truffaut, among others, considered him a godfather of sorts, as Godard did Melville. Read Hitchcock/Truffaut for more clarification.